Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
|
THis is pretty close to alignment here. The only thing I wonder is if the filesystem router is more generalizeable than Solid Router.. It doesn't have to be. But it is more of a protocol than a specific implementation. In recent similar decisions it actually has led me to hoisting stuff even further up. That might be overstepping but I just had an idea of pulling it all the way up to our Rust super compiler.. Its a tool that projects/routers can hook into. Arguably this could be even framework agnostic but that isn't really our goal is it. It's Solid agnostic so it might be fine as an optional layer for any Solid project. |
|
Took a run at implementing the refined split — PR up at #572, building on #570's workspace layout:
The repo now also carries To gauge what the seam buys on the Start side: a draft migration of Start (off |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Right now all fs routing lives in start, but it could be distributed better like:
<Router>, matching, and navigation@solidjs/routerRouteDefinitionand therouteexport contract@solidjs/router<FileRoutes>runtime component@solidjs/router/fs@solidjs/router-vite@solidjs/router-vite@solidjs/router-vite@solidjs/router-vite@solidjs/router-viteGET,POST, etc. route exports@solidjs/start@solidjs/start@solidjs/start@solidjs/startUsage example
Router app
The router's Vite integration composes with the separate Solid plugin:
SolidStart app
SolidStart configures Solid and the router. Add Nitro when the app needs a
server runtime and deployment presets:
All reactions